Skip to main content
Image of UT logo that reads The University of Texas at Austin
University Interscholastic League Logo
University Interscholastic League Logo

UIL Speech Judges

If you have corrections, questions or comments regarding this information, please notify The UIL Speech and Debate department at speech@uiltexas.org or 512-471-5883.

Nicole Caligone

Current high school:
None

Currently coaching?: No

Conference:

Number of years coached:

Number of tournaments judged: 0

High school attended:
Dobie High School

Graduated high school: 2017

Participated in high school: Yes

Participated in college: No

Judging qualifications:
I am a former state-qualifier who actively competed in speech and debate throughout high school. I participated in Dramatic Interpretation (DI), Duo, Duet Acting, Lincoln-Douglas (LD), and Cross-Examination (CX) Debate. These experiences gave me a deep understanding of structure, delivery, and the discipline required to succeed in competitive forensics. Since graduating in 2017, I have been judging on and off and have developed a genuine love for the process. I take pride in providing balanced and constructive feedback that helps students grow in both skill and confidence. My judging philosophy centers on fairness, clarity, and respect for all competitors. I value strong organization, persuasive analysis, and confident delivery. Whether in debate or interpretation events, I appreciate creativity, emotional authenticity, and well-supported arguments. Above all, I aim to foster a positive, educational environment that recognizes effort, growth, and the art of effective communication.

Judging Philosophy

CX

Rounds judged: 0
Judging approach: Policy Maker
Policy priority: Communication skills and resolution of substantive issues are of equal importance
Evidence philosophy: Quantity of evidence and quality of evidence are of equal importance
Paradigm: I value clarity, organization, and solid evidence over speed or excessive jargon. I prefer rounds where debaters clearly explain their arguments, impacts, and how they interact with the opposing case. I evaluate based on which team provides the most logical and well-supported advocacy by the end of the round. I flow carefully, but I also prioritize communication—if I can’t understand an argument, I can’t weigh it. I appreciate respectful cross-examination and strong teamwork. Ultimately, I look for a clear story of why your side wins and what impacts matter most in the round.

LD

Rounds judged: 0
Approach: Communication skills and resolution of substantive issues are of equal importance
Philosophy:
value clear, logical argumentation rooted in strong analysis and ethical reasoning. Debaters should focus on explaining their value framework and how their case best upholds it. I weigh impacts based on clarity and real-world relevance rather than speed or technical jargon. I appreciate debaters who communicate persuasively, engage respectfully, and adapt to their judge. My decision ultimately goes to the competitor who best proves why their framework and arguments create the strongest moral justification for their side.

Contact Information

email: Caligone.nicole@yahoo.com
cell: 409 3700599
office:

Availability Information

Meet types:
Invitational District Regional CX State State Meet Congress Region Congress State

Qualified for:
CX
LD
Extemp
Prose/Poetry

Travel

Region of residence:
3

I will travel to: 1 2 5 6